A provable Bible contradiction

[Johnny Skeptic]

John Sparks wrote: No Johnny. We believe all things, good or bad, happen for a reason. To you it might look random

Johnny: Is there any evidence that such is not the case? Just several tangible examples will do.

John: Bad things have their purposes as well as good things. Even bad situations can bring about good. A baby born with a birth defect might spur a father into becoming a doctor (just as an example).

Johnny: And babies being born with severe birth defects has caused some Christians to give up Christianity. Regarding the recent tsunami in Asia, I read where some Christians ministers gave up Christianity as a result.

If bad things have a purpose, then why do Christians attempt to avoid them whenever possible? If disease has a purpose, why should Christians ask God to heal them? If disease has a purpose, why do Christians try to prevent disease? When sin entered the Garden of Eden, God mandated rough times to come. Why do Christians try to undo God's mandate, for example trying to prevent and cure disease, and even ask his help in undoing his own mandate?

John: Romans 8:28

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

Johnny: Now that remains to be seen, doesn't it?

[Sparko]

John Sparks wrote: No Johnny. We believe all things, good or bad, happen for a reason. To you it might look random

Johnny: Is there any evidence that such is not the case? Just several tangible examples will do.

My dad was an alcoholic. Because of his drinking, he eventually had a stroke. Bad thing huh? But because of the stroke he changed his life and became a Christian, stopped drinking, became a good father, told me he loved me for the first time in my life and because of that, I became a Christian, and so did my brother and his whole family, some of my Dad's old drinking buddies, and several other relatives. So one stroke saved over a dozen people.

I heard on the radio a young woman who was speaking of how she was raped as a 12 year old child, by her own father. It was horrible. But instead of being a victim, she changed and became stronger. She now goes around counseling other rape victims and teaching them how to recover, and preaching Christ to them too.

There was a young girl on the news recently who had her arm bitten off by a shark. Rather than being depressed about it, she used the opportunity to show the world that she was Christian and that she could use her situation to tell others about Jesus. She got the opportunity to speak about it to the world as every news channel carried the story for several days.

One of the men aboard the plane that was hijacked in 2001 and was headed for washington was a Christian. Instead of complaining about how awful his situation was, he talked everyone into attacking the hijackers crashing the plane. That act of heroism most likely saved thousands of lives.

Is that enough?

John: Bad things have their purposes as well as good things. Even bad situations can bring about good. A baby born with a birth defect might spur a father into becoming a doctor (just as an example).

Johnny: And babies being born with severe birth defects has caused some Christians to give up Christianity. Regarding the recent tsunami in Asia, I read where some Christians ministers gave up Christianity as a result.

External evidence please!

Just kidding. that is what you always say when you have no response.

Yeah bad things to happen and we can't always see what the plan is that God has. Maybe these people were not really Christians after all and God used the situations to weed them out. Or maybe they will return as stronger Christians later. Or maybe this is one of those situations where we, as limited creatures just can't understand or see the big picture. It in no way indicates a random universe or a deterministic one run by physics alone.

If bad things have a purpose, then why do Christians attempt to avoid them whenever possible? If disease has a purpose, why should Christians ask God to heal them? If disease has a purpose, why do Christians try to prevent disease? When sin entered the Garden of Eden, God mandated rough times to come. Why do Christians try to undo God's mandate, for example trying to prevent and cure disease, and even ask his help in undoing his own mandate?

Because sometimes bad things happen to spur us into action, to cause us to pray, to try to cure desease, to help others, to grow our character. Our reaction IS one of the purposes of bad things happening as well as good. God wants us to react.

John: Romans 8:28

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

Johnny: Now that remains to be seen, doesn't it?

I see it every day in my life. You may never see it, because you have already admitted your hatred for God instead of your love.

[Johnny Skeptic]

John Sparks wrote: It in no way indicates a random universe or a deterministic one run by physics alone. I see it every day in my life. You may never see it, because you have already admitted your hatred for God instead of your love.

Johnny: Since I don’t believe that the God of the Bible exists, it is impossible for me to hate him. Even if I did believe that he exists, I couldn’t hate him because I am a determinist. God’s allowances and actions, i.e. the Bubonic Plague and the global flood, in fact account for more suffering and death than the actions of all of the evil people in history. Exodus 4:11 says “And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord.” With God as our enemy, who needs the Devil to mess things up?

Please give me an example of a tangible event that you believe was not accounted for by the laws of physics.

[Sparko]

John Sparks wrote: It in no way indicates a random universe or a deterministic one run by physics alone. I see it every day in my life. You may never see it, because you have already admitted your hatred for God instead of your love.

Johnny: Since I don’t believe that the God of the Bible exists, it is impossible for me to hate him. Even if I did believe that he exists, I couldn’t hate him because I am a determinist. God’s allowances and actions, i.e. the Bubonic Plague and the global flood, in fact account for more suffering and death than the actions of all of the evil people in history. Exodus 4:11 says “And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord.” With God as our enemy, who needs the Devil to mess things up?

Please give me an example of a tangible event that you believe was not accounted for by the laws of physics.

The big bang, Jesus Resurrection, My Conversion, and YOUR IDIOCY. There are four for ya. have fun.

My gracious, but you are an idiot. I am done with you. You completely ignore anything anyone says and just ramble on as if you were talking to yourself. When people defeat your lame arguments you ignore it and just change the subject. Then later you come back and spew the same stuff all over again as if you were not handed your hiney the last time. I think you need to go argue with a fellow AI Bot, Mononoke: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/forumdisplay.php?f=55


Here is who you are Johnny... and it is a generous description of you too.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

[attachment=1]

Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics.

==========================

I hereby boycott your threads until you show some common sense and I invite everyone else to do the same.

====================
Oh yeah I almost forgot...

I have a parting gift for you...

I emailed Rodney Stark and told him about how you go around using his book to try to prove the early Church was a failure. Here is his reply...

Why bother with some obsessed atheist with nothing better to do than bother Christians? Yes, I did estimate the church in the 1st century as numbering about 7,500. How does this suggest failure? Who won?

He is right. Why are we bothering with you? Buh-bye.


Have a day.

[Johnny Skeptic]

John Sparks wrote: It in no way indicates a random universe or a deterministic one run by physics alone. I see it every day in my life. You may never see it, because you have already admitted your hatred for God instead of your love.

Johnny: Since I don’t believe that the God of the Bible exists, it is impossible for me to hate him. Even if I did believe that he exists, I couldn’t hate him because I am a determinist. God’s allowances and actions, i.e. the Bubonic Plague and the global flood, in fact account for more suffering and death than the actions of all of the evil people in history. Exodus 4:11 says “And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord.” With God as our enemy, who needs the Devil to mess things up?

Please give me an example of a tangible event that you believe was not accounted for by the laws of physics.

Johnny: The big bang, Jesus Resurrection, My Conversion, and YOUR IDIOCY. There are four for ya. have fun.

Johnny: What I meant was a tangible event today. You said "I see it every day in my life." Please give me an example.

John: My gracious, but you are an idiot. I am done with you. You completely ignore anything anyone says and just ramble on as if you were talking to yourself. When people defeat your lame arguments you ignore it and just change the subject.

Johnny: I will answer any question that you ask me. You are a hypocrit. It is in fact you who avoid answering my questions when you know that you are in trouble.

John: I hereby boycott your threads until you show some common sense and I invite everyone else to do the same.

Johnny: Wonderful. Thanks for the favor. I am glad to be rid of you.

John: Oh yeah I almost forgot...

I have a parting gift for you...

I emailed Rodney Stark and told him about how you go around using his book to try to prove the early Church was a failure. Here is his reply...

Quote: Originally posted by Rodney Stark

Why bother with some obsessed atheist with nothing better to do than bother Christians? Yes, I did estimate the church in the 1st century as numbering about 7,500. How does this suggest failure? Who won?

Johnny: 7500? After fighting against Stark by tooth and claw for over two years, now you admit that you were wrong. Thank you. James Holding gave up on this issue too by basically saying "So I agree with Stark? So what? It doesn't change my arguments at all." Not at all, after saying in TIF "the thousands at Pentecost?" My gracious. 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. proves that Christianity was a failure in the 1st century, and that Holding's TIF is a failure to boot, at a time when its rate of growth should have been rapid due to the presence of the supposed still living eyewitnesses. 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. in fact proves that the writer of the book of Acts was a liar. You can't possibly have "many thousands" of Christians around 40 A.D. and end up with only 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D.

Boy are you ever stupid and ignorant. In James Holding's book review of 'The Rise of Christianity' he said that Stark explained the growth of Christianity by NATURALISTIC means, you dummy. You claim exactly the opposite. If Stark is a Christian, he has to be a liberal Christian, and if he joined this forum and opened a lot of threads regarding his liberal Christian views, you would immediately attack him, and you most certainly would not desire to be a close friend of his. If Stark attends a liberal Christian Church, you wouldn't be caught dead in it.

[Sparko]

well I must at least answer your last post:

1. I gave examples of good coming from bad for those who love God in the post previous to the last one. Several just as you asked for.

2. I never questioned that Stark SAID there were 7530 chrisitians in AD 100. I disagreed with his statistics, you moron.

3. Not even understanding simple things like that is why I am done with your threads.

4. Even if Stark is a liberal Chrisitian, I would side with him over a dipstick like you any day. And he obviously thinks you are full of crap and an obsessed atheist. So much for your buddy Stark. He thinks you are not worth wasting time on.

I agree.

[salvationfound]

Why bother with some obsessed atheist with nothing better to do than bother Christians? Yes, I did estimate the church in the 1st century as numbering about 7,500. How does this suggest failure? Who won?

I just have to respond since this is exactly what I have been saying about
Stark's numbers.
That means Stark agrees more with my assessment of the numbers than he
does Johnny.

Johnny asked me

Johnny: So 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. is amazing?

So he knows that even before I read this email I was saying that 7500 was
impressive and wonderful and not a failure. I even once read Stark say in an
interview that his findings make the Christian accomplishment seem all the
more wonderful.

So Johnny would you say that Stark feels that 7500 is not a failure and in
fact an impressive number?

And if that's the case Johnny would you say that Stark agrees more with my
interpretation of 7500 being an impressive number than your interpretation of
7500 not being impressive?

It just sounds ironic that despite Richard Carrier and Johnny using Stark alot
I agree with Stark even more than they do.

[jason]

Johnny: Just please tell me what evidence today indicates that the laws of physics do not account for the distribution of good things and bad things.

You can't really be this dense can you ?

I'm siding with JohnSparks. Johnny it is pointless to talk to you. You are not interested in having a discussion just in spouting the same stupid crap over and over.

Jason

[Johnny Skeptic]

Anyone who agrees that Rodney Stark's estimate of 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. is reliable must also conclude that the writer of the book of Acts was a liar. You can't possibly have "many thousands" of Christian in around 40 A.D. and only end up with 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D.

Stark stands by his well-corroborated estimates, and I am using them as I choose. In TIF, James Holding's first topic is titled 'Who Would Buy One Crucified?' Well obviously 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. suggests not very many at all, most certainly not "the thousand at Pentecost" that Holding mentions in TIF. In other topics Holding mentions the issues of trusting the testimonies of women and trusting in bumpkins. The best evidence suggests that not very many people at all trusted the testimonies of women and trusted in bumpkins in the 1st century, a time when rapid growth in the Christian Church had very best opportunities due the testimonies of the supposed still living eyewitnesses. Eyewitness testimony is the very best kind of testimony, so rational minded people will conclude that there was no Resurrection and hence no eyewitnesses.

It is interesting to note that after contesting Stark and me for over two years, and attempting to prove a sizeable 1st century Christian Church with hundreds of thousands of members, Holding, John Sparks and Salvationfound have completely reversed their positions. They now have no problem at all with Stark's estimate of 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. and claim that 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. was a victory for the Christian Church, which of course it was not. As I have said before, historically, very small groups of people have believed in all sorts of outslandish things, some even more outlandish than Christianity. Stark explains why the early Christian Church eventually began to grow more rapidly, and James Holding admits that he did so by using "naturalistic" arguments. Have you got that, John Sparks, a naturalistic argument? If Stark is a liberal Christian, and if he joined this forum and opened a number of threads regarding his liberal Christian views, he would immediately be attacked by Christians.

By the way, the liberal Episcopal Church has a gay bishop, a lot of Methodists are pro choice, and the United Church of Christ just endorsed same sex marriage. Well, that isn't a problem. If Stark is a Christian, he most certainly is a liberal Christian, and since John Sparks says that he likes Stark, and that Stark promotes Christianity, I guess John approves of same sex marriage if Stark does, and if Stark is pro choice he will be pro choice too.

[jason]

Anyone who agrees that Rodney Stark's estimate of 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. is reliable must also conclude that the writer of the book of Acts was a liar. You can't possibly have "many thousands" of Christian in around 40 A.D. and only end up with 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D.

Stark stands by his well-corroborated estimates, and I am using them as I choose. In TIF, James Holding's first topic is titled 'Who Would Buy One Crucified?' Well obviously 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. suggests not very many at all, most certainly not "the thousand at Pentecost" that Holding mentions in TIF. In other topics Holding mentions the issues of trusting the testimonies of women and trusting in bumpkins. The best evidence suggests that not very many people at all trusted the testimonies of women and trusted in bumpkins in the 1st century, a time when rapid growth in the Christian Church had very best opportunities due the testimonies of the supposed still living eyewitnesses. Eyewitness testimony is the very best kind of testimony, so rational minded people will conclude that there was no Resurrection and hence no eyewitnesses.

It is interesting to note that after contesting Stark and me for over two years, and attempting to prove a sizeable 1st century Christian Church with hundreds of thousands of members, Holding, John Sparks and Salvationfound have completely reversed their positions. They now have no problem at all with Stark's estimate of 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. and claim that 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. was a victory for the Christian Church, which of course it was not. As I have said before, historically, very small groups of people have believed in all sorts of outslandish things, some even more outlandish than Christianity. Stark explains why the early Christian Church eventually began to grow more rapidly, and James Holding admits that he did so by using "naturalistic" arguments. Have you got that, John Sparks, a naturalistic argument? If Stark is a liberal Christian, and if he joined this forum and opened a number of threads regarding his liberal Christian views, he would immediately be attacked by Christians.

By the way, the liberal Episcopal Church has a gay bishop, a lot of Methodists are pro choice, and the United Church of Christ just endorsed same sex marriage. Well, that isn't a problem. If Stark is a Christian, he most certainly is a liberal Christian, and since John Sparks says that he likes Stark, and that Stark promotes Christianity, I guess John approves of same sex marriage if Stark does, and if Stark is pro choice he will be pro choice too.

Except of course Stark thinks you are a looney

[Sparko]

It is interesting to note that after contesting Stark and me for over two years, and attempting to prove a sizeable 1st century Christian Church with hundreds of thousands of members, Holding, John Sparks and Salvationfound have completely reversed their positions. They now have no problem at all with Stark's estimate of 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. and claim that 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. was a victory for the Christian Church, which of course it was not.

I realize you are just trolling at this point because you miss me. But you are LYING about me and I can't stand that.

I will use small words and large print so you can understand me:

I never said I agree with Stark's numbers for the size of the first century church. NEVER. YOU ARE LYING!

yes, I know that accusations of lying are taken seriously here at tweb, but you are doing so and anyone reading this thread can see that.

I never said Stark was right. In fact I said that I disagree with Stark's statistics because he did not take into account the conversions of the 3000 in Acts, and I substantiated it using external evidence by showing that the population of Jerusalem was indeed larger than 20000 during the passover/penecost (josephus b vi 9.3)

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=102

I demand an apology for misrepresenting what I said and believe. I am reporting your post for lying about me.

I hope you can read these big letters, Johnny.

[salvationfound]

Holding, John Sparks and Salvationfound have completely reversed their positions.

That is a lie about me and you know it. I never agreed with Impossible Faith
and you know that. And before I read this email I was talking about how I
considered Stark's numbers to be impressive for Christianity. I personally
thought and still do think that it was higher but if it was lower I find it much
more impressive.

Now I ask again does Stark agree with my position more than yours? Does he
think 7500 was an impressive number? Or does he think that 7500 shows
Christianity was a failure?

[Johnny Skeptic]

Quote: Originally posted by Johnny Skeptic
It is interesting to note that after contesting Stark and me for over two years, and attempting to prove a sizeable 1st century Christian Church with hundreds of thousands of members, Holding, John Sparks and Salvationfound have completely reversed their positions. They now have no problem at all with Stark's estimate of 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. and claim that 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. was a victory for the Christian Church, which of course it was not.

John Sparks replied: I realize you are just trolling at this point because you miss me. But you are LYING about me and I can't stand that.

I will use small words and large print so you can understand me:

I never said I agree with Stark's numbers for the size of the first century church. NEVER. YOU ARE LYING!

Johnny: Then I misunderstood you. I thought that you recently mentioned a figure of 7,500 as being acceptable. I will check and see if you did.

John: yes, I know that accusations of lying are taken seriously here at tweb, but you are doing so and anyone reading this thread can see that.

Johnny: Then James Holding should provide proof of his accusation that Richard Carrier is a liar or get a moderator’s warning. Holding directly accused Richard of lying, but I only mistakenly said that you changed you mind.

John: I never said Stark was right. In fact I said that I disagree with Stark's statistics because he did not take into account the conversions of the 3000 in Acts, and I substantiated it using external evidence by showing that the population of Jerusalem was indeed larger than 20,000 during the passover/pentecost (josephus b vi 9.3)

Johnny: You may have substantiated 20,000 people during the passover/Pentecost (actually, I don’t care if it was 200,000 or 2,000,000), but all that matters is how many Christians there were. So far, you have not provided any external proof whatsoever that backs up your claim. I have a proposal for you. I will send you $500 in cash if you can produce just three leading non-Christian historians with Ph.D.’s in history from Yale, Harvard or Stanford who agree with you that there is good evidence that there were 3,000 Christians at Pentecost, and you send me $100 in cash if you can’t produce them. We will never get anywhere unless we include leading historians in this debate. Stark did, but you didn’t. Why is that? If you contact some historians, please give me their names and telephone numbers because I want to make sure that they are aware of ‘The Rise of Christianity’ before they make up their minds. If you contact some historians, which I am pretty sure that you will not do because you don’t want to embarrass yourself, I predict that Stark will win hands down.

John: I demand an apology for misrepresenting what I said and believe. I am reporting your post for lying about me.

Johnny: Report what you wish. If you wish for me to apologize for making an honest mistake, then I do so, but the moderators are not likely to give me a moderator’s warning for making an honest mistake. Just like James Holding, Richbee and Jason, instead of simply politely presenting your arguments, you insist on personalizing your arguments. Readers are not at all interested in personal arguments. Yes, I once called you a coward, but only after over two years of repeated insults from you which started soon after I joined the Theology Web. Anyone who takes the time to go over our exchanges in various threads over the last two years, or even the last few months, will see that you are a sarcastic person and that I am much more polite than you are. Would you like for me to post some of the evidence? I sure hope so. I have gotten along just fine with some Christians at this forum and elsewhere, but you insist on being insulting and sarcastic. If you truly had the love of Jesus Christ in your heart, you could not possibly act the way you do. 1st Corinthians 13 says that love is patient and kind, and keeps no record of wrongs. What is the matter with you? This is a debate forum, not a place to exchange insults.

[Sparko]

My getting angry with you is one of the reasons I want to just leave your stupid threads. You are impossible to debate with Johnny. You keep misrepresenting what I say, not understanding the simplist of arguments, completely change the subject at the first sign of you being defeated, and even when corrected about your misrepresentations (see post #126 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=126 where I previously corrected you about that I dont agree with Stark's numbers) you just ignore it and misrepresent me all over again, and when called on it, claim it is just an 'honest mistake' - Either you are lying again, or you are such a blind idiot that I want nothing to do with you.

I know you don't like me, and I don't like you. I will make a deal with you. I will stop insulting you and leave you alone if you never mention my name in one of your posts again, or even try to say what you THINK I believe about any topic? Deal?

[Johnny Skeptic]

John Sparks wrote: My getting angry with you is one of the reasons I want to just leave your stupid threads. You are impossible to debate with Johnny. You keep misrepresenting what I say, not understanding the simplist of arguments, completely change the subject at the first sign of you being defeated, and even when corrected about your misrepresentations (see post #126 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/s...5&postcount=126 where I previously corrected you about that I don't agree with Stark's numbers) you just ignore it and misrepresent me all over again, and when called on it, claim it is just an 'honest mistake' - Either you are lying again, or you are such a blind idiot that I want nothing to do with you.

I know you don't like me, and I don't like you. I will make a deal with you. I will stop insulting you and leave you alone if you never mention my name in one of your posts again, or even try to say what you THINK I believe about any topic? Deal?

Johnny: I will try to remember not to go out of my way to mention your name, but if you make a post in a thread that I am interested in, I reserve the right to contest what you post, and I will do so politely if you do the same. I do get mixed up sometimes. I am usually tired due to serious digestive problems that I have had for fifteen years.

I have started close to 60 threads at the Theology Web, and my threads have gotten many thousands of views and many hundreds of replies. I have provided many opportunities for lots of people on both sides to increase their knowledge and debating skills. If I had never come to this forum, Rodney Stark might never have been brought up. In my opinion, 'The Rise of Christianity' undermines fundamentalist Christianity, which is the only kind of Christianity that I oppose, more than any book ever written, but I am not saying that that was Stark's intention. As James Holding correctly said, Stark explains the growth of Christianity by naturalistic means. I think that you once said that 'The Rise of Christianity' promotes Christianity. That might be true, but it most certainly does not promote fundamentalist Christianity. Stark's bibliography is twenty pages long, attesting to the fact that he is a consummate researcher. He has written over 50 books and publications, and in addition to a Pulitzer Prize nomination for 'The Rise of Christianity' he had received numerous awards. Stark and his impressive coalition of scholars are formidable adversaries for fundamentalist Christians. Where is your coalition of scholars?